A SIMPLE WELFARE CHECK LEADS POLICE TO A DISTURBING DISCOVERY INSIDE A LAS VEGAS HOME

Note: The supplied thumbnail is a presentation image and cannot be verified as an authentic photograph from this case. The article below therefore does not use the woman pictured in the thumbnail as evidence or identify her as anyone connected with the incident. The factual account is based on police information, court-related reporting, and contemporary news coverage.

A welfare check is one of the most routine calls police officers receive. There may be no allegation of a crime, no identified suspect, and sometimes no evidence that anything has happened at all. A relative, neighbor, employer, property manager, or friend simply becomes concerned because someone has stopped answering calls or has not been seen for an unusual period of time.

On November 6, 2024, that was essentially how officers with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department arrived at a residence in the 5500 block of Tres Piedras Road in the east Las Vegas Valley.

The request concerned a 68-year-old woman who lived there.

She had not been seen for days.

What began as an attempt to make sure she was safe eventually led officers through the house and to a locked chest freezer.

Inside, they discovered the body of a woman.

Police subsequently identified the resident as Monique Gilbertson and arrested Daniel Roush, then 37, in connection with her death. Roush later pleaded not guilty to a second-degree murder charge. Because criminal proceedings involve allegations that must be proved in court, claims about how Gilbertson died and who was legally responsible must be distinguished from facts independently established by police and court records.

The case is remarkable not simply because of what officers discovered. It also demonstrates how an apparently ordinary welfare check can develop into a major homicide investigation.

THE CALL THAT BROUGHT POLICE TO THE HOUSE

The official timeline begins late in the morning on November 6.

According to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, communications received a request at approximately 11:41 a.m. asking officers to check on an older woman at a home in the 5500 block of Tres Piedras Road.

Officers arrived and attempted to contact her.

There was no response.

Contemporary reporting added important context to why people were concerned.

Gilbertson lived in a 55-plus mobile-home community and was known around the neighborhood. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the person requesting the welfare check told authorities that the resident regularly walked her dog but had not been seen since late October.

FOX5 later reported, citing police information, that a manager in the community had developed a relationship with Gilbertson and became concerned after not hearing from her for several days.

Those circumstances are important.

A person failing to answer a door on one occasion is not necessarily alarming. But when someone who follows a recognizable routine suddenly disappears from that routine, the absence itself can become significant.

Gilbertson was not merely unavailable for a few minutes.

People accustomed to seeing her had begun to notice that she was gone.

The concern eventually became serious enough for someone to ask police to investigate.

OFFICERS COULD NOT GET AN ANSWER

When officers reached the residence, their immediate objective was straightforward: locate Gilbertson and determine whether she needed assistance.

But nobody initially answered.

Reporting based on the later body-camera footage and case documents indicates that police spent an extended period trying to gain contact. FOX5 reported that officers said they knocked for approximately 45 minutes before Daniel Roush answered the door.

That prolonged lack of response increased the uncertainty.

Officers were not dealing with a confirmed crime scene at that stage. They were looking for a person whose neighbors or community contacts believed something might be wrong.

Eventually, however, police made contact with people inside the residence.

The official LVMPD statement said officers located two individuals who were unable to provide the location of the woman officers had been sent to check on.

That fundamentally changed the situation.

Police now knew that people were inside the residence.

But they still did not know where Gilbertson was.

BODYCAM VIDEO LATER SHOWED THE SEARCH

The public gained a much clearer understanding of the encounter when body-worn-camera footage became available.

FOX5 reported in January 2025 that video released through the Clark County District Court showed officers conducting the welfare check and eventually discovering Gilbertson's body. The recording runs for roughly 44 minutes.

The footage is significant because it shows how officers moved from a relatively ordinary missing-person concern to the discovery that transformed the call into something far more serious.

Police did not arrive already knowing where Gilbertson was.

They had to determine that.

When officers could not find her through ordinary contact, the search expanded inside the residence.

That is an important distinction when watching edited versions of body-camera footage online. A short clip may make the discovery appear almost immediate, but the actual encounter involved officers attempting contact, speaking with people at the residence, searching areas where Gilbertson could potentially be located, and eventually confronting a locked container.

A LOCKED FREEZER ATTRACTS ATTENTION

During the search, officers encountered a chest freezer.

It was locked.

According to reporting about the body-camera recording, the freezer was located in a utility area and was covered with clothing or other material.

The fact that it was locked became especially significant because officers were conducting a welfare check for a missing resident.

LVMPD Homicide Lt. Jason Johansson later explained the practical reasoning involved in such searches. When police are trying to locate someone during a welfare check, officers may have to examine places capable of containing the person they are seeking.

A locksmith was brought in to open the freezer.

That decision produced the discovery that changed everything.

Inside was a deceased woman.

The official police release initially did not publicly identify her. LVMPD stated simply that officers had located a deceased female inside the freezer and that the Homicide Section had taken over the investigation.

Later reporting identified the woman as Monique Gilbertson.

She was 68.

The welfare check was over.

A homicide investigation had begun.

THE MOMENT THE ENTIRE CALL CHANGED

Police calls can change classification extraordinarily quickly.

Officers can arrive expecting to resolve a situation in minutes and instead find evidence requiring detectives, forensic personnel, warrants, interviews, medical examination, and eventually prosecutors.

This was one of those calls.

Until officers opened the freezer, they were searching for a missing resident.

Afterward, investigators had an entirely different set of questions.

How long had Gilbertson been dead?

How did she die?

Why was her body inside a locked freezer?

Who had access to the residence?

Who had last seen her alive?

Who were the two people police encountered inside the house?

And what did they know?

LVMPD detained both people while detectives investigated their possible involvement.

The department subsequently announced that detectives had determined Daniel Roush was involved in Gilbertson's death. Police arrested Roush and initially booked Roush on an open-murder charge.

That was the beginning of the criminal case, not its conclusion.

An arrest is not a conviction, and allegations appearing in police reports or charging documents should not be presented as established findings of guilt.

WHO WAS MONIQUE GILBERTSON?

The circumstances of Gilbertson's death naturally dominated early coverage, but later reporting provided a broader picture of the person whose absence triggered the welfare check.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Gilbertson had worked in real estate earlier in her life. California records cited by the newspaper indicated that a person with her name held a real-estate salesperson license beginning in 1977, with the license eventually expiring in 2009.

She also had a strong attachment to her pets.

Friends and neighbors described her dogs, including a Chihuahua she sometimes dressed in outfits. One friend recalled that when they traveled together, the dog occupied a car seat in the front while the friend sat in the back.

These details may seem minor compared with the criminal investigation.

They are not.

Crime stories often transform a victim into a name followed by an age and a description of how the person died. The circumstances become memorable while the actual individual becomes secondary.

Gilbertson existed long before November 2024.

She had relationships, conflicts, pets, routines, financial difficulties, friendships and decades of personal history.

And, crucially, she was familiar enough to the people around her that her unexplained absence was noticed.

That observation ultimately brought police to her home.

HER ROUTINE HELPED RAISE THE ALARM

There was no dramatic emergency call reporting an attack in progress.

Instead, a change in ordinary behavior generated concern.

Gilbertson had apparently stopped appearing where people expected to see her.

Neighbors told the Review-Journal that she was known in the community and that her absence stood out. One resident recalled that Gilbertson would bring her dog outside around the time the neighbor collected mail, but that this had not happened for weeks.

The newspaper also reported that Gilbertson had stopped visiting the community association office and was not answering her door.

Taken separately, any one of those details might mean little.

Together, they formed a pattern.

A familiar resident had effectively disappeared from normal neighborhood life.

Someone eventually acted on that concern.

Without the welfare check, there is no way to know precisely when authorities otherwise would have discovered what happened inside the residence.

INVESTIGATORS TURNED THEIR ATTENTION TO DANIEL ROUSH

After officers found the body, detectives began reconstructing Gilbertson's recent relationships.

One person quickly became central to the investigation: Daniel Roush.

Police said Roush was one of the individuals found at the property.

According to later reporting based on the arrest report, Gilbertson and Roush had met while shopping at a Home Depot. Gilbertson subsequently invited Roush to live at her residence.

The relationship apparently deteriorated.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that police said Gilbertson had eventually wanted Roush out of the residence.

These circumstances became part of investigators' effort to establish a timeline.

But it is especially important here to distinguish police allegations from proven facts.

Statements attributed to witnesses, suspects, spouses, or other individuals during an investigation can conflict. They may later be challenged in court. A charging document tells the public what authorities allege; it does not independently establish guilt.

That distinction became particularly important as different accounts emerged concerning Gilbertson's death.

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED

Reporting based on police documents described conflicting explanations.

According to KTNV, Roush told police that Gilbertson had been found unresponsive at a dining-room table with drugs nearby. The report described Roush as telling investigators that Gilbertson used cocaine and opiates.

Other allegations reported by authorities presented a different picture of events.

The Review-Journal reported that Roush's wife told police that Roush had used Gilbertson's money to purchase cocaine allegedly containing fentanyl and that Gilbertson overdosed in Roush's presence. The newspaper also reported that Roush denied that version.

Those conflicting claims are precisely why a responsible account should not announce one narrative as fact merely because it appears in an arrest report.

Investigators collect statements.

Prosecutors decide what charges they believe evidence supports.

Defense attorneys challenge evidence and allegations.

Courts determine what can be admitted.

And ultimately, guilt must be established through the legal process rather than through the most dramatic interpretation of police footage.

THE BODYCAM RECORDING BECOMES PUBLIC

Months after the November discovery, body-camera footage allowed the public to see portions of what officers encountered.

FOX5 reported on January 17, 2025 that the recording showed police arriving with a locksmith and interacting with Roush before searching the residence.

Another account of the video described Roush repeatedly telling officers that Gilbertson was not there.

Police nevertheless had an unresolved welfare concern.

They still had not found the person they had been dispatched to locate.

Eventually the search led to the utility area and the locked freezer.

The locksmith opened it.

Inside, officers discovered Gilbertson.

For investigators, that moment was evidence.

For viewers, it became the disturbing centerpiece of the body-camera release.

But focusing only on that moment risks missing the investigative significance of everything that preceded it.

The reason officers were looking inside containers and enclosed spaces was not random curiosity.

They were still trying to answer the original question:

Where was Monique Gilbertson?

WHY WELFARE CHECKS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ORDINARY CRIMINAL CALLS

A welfare check begins with uncertainty.

Police may be checking on an older resident who has stopped answering the telephone, a person whose employer reports an unexplained absence, someone experiencing a medical emergency, or an individual whose relatives have suddenly lost contact.

Frequently, officers find nothing criminal.

Sometimes the person is simply away.

Sometimes the individual is asleep or has lost a phone.

Sometimes medical assistance is needed.

And occasionally, officers discover evidence of a serious crime.

The Gilbertson case demonstrates the investigative difficulty created by that uncertainty.

When officers first arrived, the available information did not tell them what they would eventually find.

There was no confirmed homicide waiting for detectives.

There was a missing resident.

The evidence developed only as officers attempted to locate her.

A COMMUNITY WAS LEFT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED

After news spread that a body had been discovered, neighbors reacted with shock.

The mobile-home community was normally a place where residents knew one another's habits and saw each other around the neighborhood.

The Review-Journal interviewed several people who remembered Gilbertson in very different ways.

Not everybody liked her.

Some described disagreements.

Others remembered her affectionately.

One friend characterized her as vulnerable and lonely. Another neighbor who acknowledged not getting along with Gilbertson nevertheless expressed distress over what had happened.

That mixture of memories provides a more realistic picture than a simplified crime narrative.

Victims do not need to have been universally admired to matter.

People are complicated.

Neighborhood relationships can be complicated.

The relevant fact is that Gilbertson disappeared from a community where people were familiar enough with her behavior to realize something was wrong.

Someone noticed.

Someone called.

And officers went looking.

THE CRIMINAL CASE MOVED FORWARD

Following Roush's arrest, the case entered the court system.

On November 13, 2024, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that an attorney entered a not guilty plea on Roush's behalf to a second-degree murder charge.

That plea matters.

Police had made an arrest, and prosecutors had brought a serious allegation, but Roush disputed criminal responsibility through the plea.

Later court proceedings also involved evidentiary questions, including issues surrounding statements connected to the investigation. KTNV reported in 2026 on litigation involving whether an alleged confession to a spouse could be admitted, demonstrating that significant legal questions continued well beyond the initial arrest.

That is why describing this story accurately requires careful language.

It is appropriate to say that police arrested Roush.

It is appropriate to say prosecutors charged Roush.

It is appropriate to describe allegations contained in police or court documents as allegations.

It would not be appropriate to convert those allegations into a final determination of guilt unless and until the legal record establishes that outcome.

THE CAMERA SHOWS EVENTS, BUT NOT THE ENTIRE CASE

Body-camera video is extraordinarily compelling because it appears immediate.

Viewers hear the officers.

They see the rooms.

They experience the uncertainty as police move through the residence.

And eventually they understand why the freezer becomes important.

But bodycam footage has limits.

The camera did not record everything that happened before officers arrived.

It cannot independently establish how Gilbertson died.

It cannot determine whether every statement given to investigators is true.

It cannot resolve disputed questions of criminal intent.

Those issues require evidence beyond the video: forensic examinations, witness interviews, digital records, physical evidence, medical findings, court testimony and legal analysis.

The footage therefore documents the discovery, not necessarily the complete explanation.

That difference is essential.

THE THUMBNAIL IS NOT EVIDENCE

The image accompanying this article shows a woman wrapped in a blanket speaking with police beneath the words:

“WELFARE CHECK – WHAT DID THEY FIND?”

There is no verified basis for identifying the woman pictured as Monique Gilbertson.

The supplied image should therefore be treated as a dramatized or illustrative thumbnail rather than documentary evidence from the Las Vegas case.

That distinction is particularly important in true-crime and police-footage coverage.

A thumbnail is designed to attract attention.

Evidence is designed to establish facts.

The two are not interchangeable.

The real case is already compelling without inventing visual details.

The documented story involves concerned community members, a welfare check, officers unable to locate a resident, two people inside her home, a search, a locked freezer, the discovery of Gilbertson's body, an arrest, and a criminal case.

None of those facts requires a fictional identity to be attached to the woman shown in the promotional image.

WHY THE FIRST CALLER MATTERED

It is easy to focus on the officers opening the freezer because that is the most shocking moment.

But the chain of events began earlier.

Someone realized Gilbertson was missing.

That seemingly simple observation was the first step toward discovering what had happened.

Neighbors and community staff often become informal indicators of changes in the lives of people who live alone. A missed routine, an untouched vehicle, accumulated mail, an unanswered door, or the sudden absence of a familiar dog walker can create concern.

In this case, that concern was justified.

The person requesting the welfare check could not have known what officers would discover.

They simply knew that Gilbertson's disappearance from her usual routine did not seem right.

That was enough to make the call.

FROM WELFARE CHECK TO HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION

The progression of the case is striking because each stage changed what officers knew.

At first:

A resident had not been seen.

Then:

Nobody answered the door.

Then:

Police discovered other people inside.

Then:

Those people could not satisfactorily resolve where the missing resident was.

Then:

Officers searched the home.

Then:

They discovered a locked freezer.

Finally:

They found a deceased woman inside.

Only after that did homicide detectives begin the much larger task of determining what had occurred before police arrived.

The LVMPD Homicide Section assumed control of the investigation, and Roush was subsequently arrested.

This gradual accumulation of information is exactly what short-form crime content often compresses.

A headline can make it seem as though officers arrived knowing they were searching for a body.

They did not.

They were trying to find a woman and make sure she was safe.

THE HUMAN STORY SHOULD NOT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE DISCOVERY

The freezer is inevitably the detail people remember.

But Monique Gilbertson should not become synonymous with the place where her body was found.

Reporting by the Review-Journal showed a more complicated human life.

She had once worked in real estate.

She had experienced financial difficulties.

She had family history and friendships.

She loved her pets.

She could apparently be difficult with neighbors.

She could also be entertaining and memorable to friends.

She had lived for years before becoming the subject of a homicide investigation.

That perspective matters when reporting crime.

The discovery is part of Gilbertson's story.

It is not her entire story.

WHAT THE BODYCAM REALLY REVEALS

The most important thing about the footage is not shock value.

It is the transformation of uncertainty into evidence.

Officers arrive because somebody is worried.

They attempt contact.

They encounter circumstances that fail to explain the missing resident's location.

They continue searching.

A locked freezer raises another question.

A locksmith opens it.

The welfare check reaches the worst possible conclusion.

From that point forward, every detail inside the house potentially matters.

The residence becomes an investigative scene.

The people inside become important witnesses, persons of interest, or potential suspects depending on the evidence.

Detectives begin constructing a timeline.

And prosecutors eventually have to decide what can be proved in court.

The camera lets the public witness one part of that process.

It does not replace the process.

A REMINDER ABOUT TRUE-CRIME FOOTAGE

Stories such as this spread quickly because they contain the elements that dominate online crime coverage: police video, an ordinary beginning, unexplained behavior, a hidden discovery and a criminal prosecution.

Those ingredients also make accuracy especially important.

The difference between saying “police alleged” and “this happened” can be enormous.

The difference between an arrest and a conviction is enormous.

And the difference between an authentic body-camera frame and a dramatized thumbnail is equally important.

The documented record provides enough information to tell a compelling story without filling gaps with speculation.

What is known is disturbing enough.

On November 6, 2024, Las Vegas police responded to a welfare check in the 5500 block of Tres Piedras Road.

They were looking for an older woman.

They entered her home after attempts to make contact.

They encountered two people who could not provide her location.

During the search, officers found a locked freezer.

Inside was a deceased woman.

Police later identified the missing resident as Monique Gilbertson and arrested Daniel Roush in connection with her death. Roush pleaded not guilty to the murder charge reported in the subsequent proceedings.

Everything beyond those established facts must be handled according to what the evidence and courts ultimately support.

THE ORDINARY CALL THAT BECAME ANYTHING BUT ORDINARY

Perhaps the most unsettling element of the case is how little initially distinguished it from countless welfare checks.

Nobody calling police needed to know a crime had occurred.

Nobody needed to solve the mystery beforehand.

Someone simply had to notice that a familiar person was missing.

That concern brought officers to the door.

Their inability to locate Gilbertson led them farther into the residence.

And the locked freezer ultimately provided the answer nobody wanted.

The case illustrates why welfare checks can be deceptively important. They exist precisely because absence can sometimes be the only visible indication that something is seriously wrong.

A quiet home does not tell officers what happened inside.

An unanswered door does not establish a crime.

A missing routine does not prove someone is in danger.

But sometimes those small warning signs are all that exist.

In this case, they were enough.

A concerned person made a call.

Police responded.

And an ordinary welfare check uncovered a case that would move from a Las Vegas mobile-home community to homicide detectives, courtrooms and eventually publicly released body-camera footage.

The most sensational detail will inevitably remain the discovery inside the freezer.

But the deeper story begins somewhere much simpler:

People noticed Monique Gilbertson was gone.

And someone decided not to ignore it.

Click here to watch the full incident unfold.